The Sun Sets on the “Special Relationship”

What would Margaret Thatcher do in a post-American world?

I am not sure whether Margaret Thatcher would have subscribed to today’s neoconservative dogma on Israel or not—an issue that commentators have been debating here, here, and here—although the heads of the Henry Jackson Society, the leading neocon outlet in Britain, are certain that she would.

But in any case, British policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict has traditionally been overseen by the so-called “Arabists” in the Foreign Office—perceived to be the bastion of an elite detached from Jewish concerns—who operate on the axiom that what is good for Saudi Arabia and the other Middle Eastern oil states is good for Great Britain and vice versa. Occasionally pressure from the pro-Israeli Americans modifies that position.

More importantly, British foreign policy under Thatcher and her predecessors had been based, since the late 1940s, on the expectation that the United States should and would replace Great Britain as the hegemonic Western power in the eastern Mediterranean (overseeing Greece and Turkey) and later, after the Suez crisis, in the Middle East and Persian Gulf, following Britain’s imperial retrenchment. Postwar Britain lacked the economic and military resources to continue securing access to oil in the region, and for dealing with the never-ending conflict between Israelis and Arabs.

Hence when Thatcher warned the first George Bush that “this is no time to go wobbly” and that he had to force Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, she expressed the traditional post-Suez British view of the need to present a common Anglo-American face in the Middle East. My guess is that she would have pursued the same kind of policy that Tony Blair, her Labour successor, embraced during the second Bush’s Iraq War—perhaps with less enthusiasm about promoting democracy and nation-building.

The problem is that the United States is beginning to exhibit the same need for imperial entrenchment in the Middle East that Britain experienced after World War II, when it started reducing its military footprint in the region and got fed up with trying to resolve the conflict between Jews and Arabs.

The Brits ended up passing the Middle East torch to the Americans. But now, despite mounting federal debt and military fiascoes in Iraq and Libya, Americans seem to be stuck in the region as a declining hegemonic power, while the British (and French) continue free-riding on U.S. power. The “special relationship” has proved to be one-sided.

It’s true that the British have been more inclined to deploy troops to Iraq and Afghanistan than other U.S. allies have been, and the British joined the French in playing an active role in Libya. But in reality much of the military, and by extension financial, burden of “doing the Middle East” still falls on the United States, with Britain and other NATO members resisting pressure to increase their military budgets. In fact, both London and Paris have been pressing Washington to get more directly involved in the Syrian civil war and to take a more assertive position vis-à-vis Iran’s nuclear aspirations, knowing full well that the U.S. will wind up paying most of the costs for new military interventions in the Middle East.

So I am not sure where Thatcher, who came to power during the height of American economic and military dominance, would stand on these issues. Would she be urging Barack Obama not to go wobbly on Syria and Iran? Or would she be calling for a major increase in British defense expenditures and for the strengthening Anglo-French military ties (as well as cooperation with Poland and Turkey), as part of or separate from NATO? Thatcher would probably continue to accentuate her Euro-skepticism. But what would her response be to the rise of German economic and political power, and would she try to form counter-balancing alliances? That no one can answer these questions with any confidence goes to show how much the world political and economic environment has changed since Thatcher’s time.

Thatcher had always operated under the assumption that America the Superpower would be there to protect Britain and its allies against global security threats like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. But without such a threat on the horizon, and under an international system that is taking a more multi-polar shape as American power erodes and the U.S. “pivots” to East Asia, it is doubtful that the relationship between the United States and Britain (which will cease to be “Great” if Scotland chooses independence) will remain central to either country’s foreign policy, or that the notion of a united Anglo-American front in the Middle East continues to be relevant.

American and British neocons may have been mistaken about the so-called Islamofascist threat highlighting common interests between Washington and London, particularly in the Middle East. But their complaints about President Obama’s decision to return the Churchill bust that the Brits had loaned to his predecessor may have had some validity—in the sense that America’s first “Pacific president” perhaps doesn’t feel that the relationship with the British is so special after all.

Such an attitude may reflect more than just Obama’s personal unsentimental view of our “cousins” across the Atlantic. Instead, it could turn out to be the start of a long-term trend that emerges from changing global priorities (away from the Atlantic and Middle East to the Pacific) and national demographics (less Anglo, more Latino), all of which make it less likely that what a British prime minister does in the future will matter as much to America’s policymakers as in the days of Bush I and Thatcher or Bush II and Blair.

Hide 35 comments

35 Responses to The Sun Sets on the “Special Relationship”

” it is doubtful that the relationship between the United States and Britain (which will cease to be “Great” if Scotland chooses independence) will remain central to either country’s foreign policy”

I disagree with this. The United States will still continue to be a superpower and Britain is still a relatively major world power. And even more, the United States and Britain have a shared cultural heritage and a shared history of doing big things together on the world stage. So I believe that the Special Relationship between the U.S. and Britain will continue to be important.

“But now, despite mounting federal debt and military fiascoes in Iraq and Libya, Americans seem to be stuck in the region as a declining hegemonic power, while the British (and French) continue free-riding on U.S. power. The “special relationship” has proved to be one-sided.”

The relatives of the hundreds of British squaddies killed or maimed in god-forsaken places in Helmand province probably would have a different view of British “free-riding” on American power. Americans’ ingratitude towards even their closest allies continues to amaze. I’m glad my own country’s elites aren’t quite as idiotically pro-American as Britain’s, so “only” about 50 of our soldiers have returned in coffins from Afghanistan. Still too much for the sake of an alliance that’s increasingly outdated and sometimes actually detrimental to European security.

@German reader “Still too much for the sake of an alliance that’s increasingly outdated and sometimes actually detrimental to European security.”

Qualified agreement. NATO may have outlasted its charter and grown unwieldy and incoherent, but the relationship between the US, Germany (bulwark and engine of Europe) and Japan (of non-China East Asia) remains foundational. The relationship with the UK no longer is; the one with Israel is that of host and parasite, chronically distorting our strategic judgement.

The important relationships are foundering on neglect, but they are not outdated.

Wesley
As recent elections show, and future demographic trends definitely show, Britain and USA do not have a shared heritage, any past sentimental bonds will decrease with time. I don’t think the “special relationship” expression was really true ever after 1945 anyway, the faster this awkward lie about special relationships is dumped, the better.

Germany an ally of the US? How absurd. America willalway look to the British (sans Scotland) and Australia as partners because of their commitment to freedom and democracy.
Germany continues to slack off on their military responsibility that should match their economic strength. They still whinge about WW2. They will continue to let the Anglos take the burden in order to shore up their economy and cut back their military to appease the extreme left. Most Americans who formulate foreign policy recognize German atributes as limited to making unreliable,but fun cars. Otherwise they are just the same as France – Eurotrash anti Americans.

The fact is the Eurasian continent is one of growing population and decreasing resources. Those who live there, from the traditional powers of Western Europe to the emerging powers of South and East Asia, have every advantage over the United States, save the absolute bulk of our military might, in contesting and controlling these resources. We are on the other side of the globe, and it would be a fool’s errand for us to continue to seek to compete with them. There is no reason for the deployment of any American armed forces to direct control of oil in central Asia, Arabia or the Persian Gulf for our own benefit, and less for the powers of Europe. Whoever controls that oil, be they Arabian potentate, Iranian mullah, Wall Street lackey or Soviet-style dictator, will be obliged to sell that oil on the world market, where prices are dictated by competition from other sources throughout the world, or they will sit on it and starve. What economic hardship the United States might suffer due to occasional shortages when the minor powers there seek to exercise their muscle will never be as costly as what has been expended in this past decade in the increasingly hopeless task of making stable the region.

The future of the United States lies in the stability and peace of the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific Rim, the basin of which will form the source of most of the Earth’s wealth when technology is developed to fully exploit the ocean bed. Now is the time to sell our interests in the Middle East, from Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf, to Iraq and Central Asia, to the Russian and the Chinese in turn for the cession of their interests in the Pacific and the Pacific Coast. Now is the time for the United States to withdraw from NATO and leave it to the powers of Europe to marshal the forces they need to maintain control of the resources in Africa and Asia they will need for their future, competing as they will be with the growing powers there. The future of Anglo-American civilization, if it is to survive, will run along the axis running from Australia and New Zealand to the United States and Canada. The inhabitants of the (dis)United Kingdom and Ireland can decide whether they wish to cast their lot with us or with the powers of Europe.

I actually agree and certainly am in favour of cooperation and good relations between the US and Europe who despite occasional misunderstandings still have a lot in common and common interests in many areas. I just don’t want that cooperation to include having to participate in misguided wars in the Islamic world that are bound to fail or advancing anachronistic projects like NATO’s continuing eastwards expansion.

@Rheinhardt

I can live with being called Eurotrash; it’s certainly preferable to sending your soldiers to an untimely death in wars with no realistic chance of success, with no other benefit than getting the approval of jingoistic Americans like yourself for about five minutes.

Enough about the Churchill bust? On the basis of his handling of the Bengal famine alone we can justify handing it back. Avery, his secretary for India compared him to Hitler over it and the image of those Australian grain ships going past India on their way to the Med where they sat at anchor for weeks in anticipation of an operation Churchill knew perfectly well the Americans were never going to greenlight, food that could have saved countless lives is chilling indeed. He asked at one point during the famine is Gandhi dead and was most disappointed to find out he wasn’t. Tells you all you need to know.

But he also as secretary for air in the early 20’s authorized the use of left over poison gas stocks against Arab villages in what used to be called Mesopotamia now the totally artificial country of Iraq, villages and villagers who had the temerity to resist British imperialism. The nerve of some people. Where pray tell was Wilson when he was needed?

“America willalway [sic] look to the British (sans Scotland) and Australia as partners because of their commitment to freedom and democracy.”

This is a badly dated perspective.

Little Britain circa 2013 is increasingly the surveillance and mommy state Orwell always feared, while Germany, ironically, is now (by default) the world’s leading defender of personal privacy, freedom and self-determination, practicing an earnest constitutionalism that I pray we will recover here in America.

This is no surprise. “Freedom and democracy” have a way of moving around, dying in one place and being reborn or blossoming elsewhere.

Put it this way: who do you think Mrs. Thatcher more closely resembles? G. W. Bush? John Cameron? Barack Obama?

Wesley, I hope you’re right, but I’m concerned that’s not the way it will play out.

For one thing, the current president is outright hostile to the British on a personal level.

Even when this president finally leaves office — thank God — there will be less and oless to anchor us to Britain, or them to us. A large and increasing portion of the Democratic Party’s base — Mexicans — typically has zero cultural or emotional ties to Britain or Europe.

On the other side of the pond, Britain is increasingly populated by Muslims who often have, to say the least, less than positive feelings towards the USA or indeed Britain itself.

Lastly, Britain is hardly a major world power any more in terms of its ability to project force. Its military is weak and getting weaker. That’s not good for America, but it’s the reality.

For one thing, the current president is outright hostile to the British on a personal level.

I do seem to remember a recent presidential candidate visiting the UK, and managing to insult his British hosts at every turn, with the result that he was openly mocked by the British public, including by putative ideological allies within the government. But I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t Obama…

Speaking of democracy and freedom, the pernicious British influence on America is second only to that of Israel. To the extent that these “allies” helped pave the way for our burgeoning surveillance and security state we owe them no thanks whatsoever.

German_Reader: I don’t know where you got the idea that the United States has shown ingratitude toward Britain, our closest and most important ally. Islamic extremism still remains a major threat to the security of not only the United States, but also Britain and your own Germany. I agree with Reinhardt that Germany has become a morally self-righteous free-rider when it comes to defense. When the U.N. Security Council passed the resolution to create a no-fly zone in Libya during the civil war there, rather than joining the U.S., Britain, and France, its Western liberal democratic allies, in voting in favor, Germany joined Russia and China in abstaining from voting. American, British, and French diplomats were reportedly not happy with Germany. There was at least once incident in Afghanistan in which a German commander ordered airstrikes that wound up killing civilians, but no militants at all. All of the airstrikes were carried out by American planes, because Germany has limited its troops’ involvement in direct combat in Afghanistan. If a country is not willing to let its troops go all in, then its commanders shouldn’t be ordering other countries’ troops into battle.

Spite and JB: The fact that America is becoming more Latino and less white shouldn’t affect America’s sense of a shared cultural heritage with Britain. There are many American whites that have little or no British ancestry. America’s relationship with Britain has been much better during the past century, when the ancestry of barely half of American whites has been mostly or all British, than it was 200 years ago, when the ancestry of 90%+ of American whites was mostly or all British. Plus, immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries have a shared Western Christian culture with Americans, unlike the smaller numbers of Muslim immigrants going to Britain.

Nathan: It is preposterous to compare Churchill’s relative lack of effort in ending the famine in India with the Holocaust. It was during World War II, the worst war the world has ever seen. Everybody did bad things. Britain didn’t do much to end the famine in India, the U.S. and other allies interned citizens and residents of Japanese ancestry and to a lesser extent those of German and Italian ancestry, the U.S. and Britain didn’t do much to help Jews trying to escape Hitler’s oppression in Germany, the allies carried out conventional firebombings of German and Japanese cities, and the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the Allies fortunately did win the war and the wicked Axis powers were cut down at their knees. The worst a war is, the worse are the things that even the good guys will do, justifiably or not. It’s a good thing that the Cold War ended peacefully, isn’t it?

Nathan says, “Enough about the Churchill bust? On the basis of his handling of the Bengal famine alone we can justify handing it back. Avery, his secretary for India compared him to Hitler over it and the image of those Australian grain ships going past India on their way to the Med where they sat at anchor for weeks in anticipation of an operation Churchill knew perfectly well the Americans were never going to greenlight, food that could have saved countless lives is chilling indeed. He asked at one point during the famine is Gandhi dead and was most disappointed to find out he wasn’t. Tells you all you need to know.”

Churchill had a reply to people like you. When asked by a fat American lady (are there any other kind?) “what are you going to do about the Indians?” replied, “Not, Madam, I hope, what you did with yours.”

Abraham Lincoln launched what amounted to the final solution to the Plains Indians at the same time as he was crushing the southern states — people who resisted American imperialism.

Sorry, I don’t regard Western interventions in the Islamic world as falling under “defense” in any meaningful way. While it’s hard to mourn someone like Gaddafi, it’s far from clear to me that the Libyan intervention has been a success. Libya’s future is uncertain and the country has become a leading exporter of arms across the region, with many of them probably finding their way into the hands of Jihadists. As for Afghanistan, while the initial invasion in 2001 was justified as a reaction to 9/11, it’s been clear for years now that there is no coherent strategy and no realistic chance of winning that war (and it isn’t even clear what “winning” there would actually mean). All the lives of foreign troops killed there will ultimately prove to have been lost in vain. Given these circumstances, I’m actually glad my own country’s soldiers have been somewhat less enthusiastic than other combatants.
As for claims of German “free-riding”, I actually agree that Germany should increase its military spending, for its own security and deterrence. But declining to participate in neo-imperial adventurism in the Islamic world that’s bound to fail and prove counter-productive seems rather prudent to me. The way to deal with Islamism isn’t attempting to reform the Muslim world by armed force but rather disengagement and having as little to do with them as possible.

@James Canning
“I very much doubt that Margaret Thatcher would have backed the idiotic US invasion of Iraq in 2003.”

Good points being made here. The bond between US, UK and Commonwealth are something the Europeans will never understand. Our nations are built on a common culture not ethnicity. Second generation immigrants tend to be the most patriotic Americans I know and I have found this true in the Commonwealth nations as well. Contrast this with the dismal assimilation of immigrants in Germany and France.
Most definately, the current administration would like to dismantle this realationship due to the President’s dislike for American history and race bating politics of the Leftist elements in the US. The US media follows this dogma as a loyal ally of the Dems/ Leftists, creating this false image overseas. The Germans, Chinese, Russians and French buy into this as it feedS their hatred of the English speaking world.
Might I remind our Europhile readers that the decision to invade Iraq was made after Hans Blix dragged his feet, with UN blessings, on confirming Iraq to be free of WMD. The UN of course is the champion of the emasculated nations of Germany, France and a host of other bitter pessimists. The Coalition gave Saddam plenty of oportunities to avoid this confrontation, unfortunately, Saddam alone decided to bring on this war.
Perhaps it is worth noting that considerable German, Russian and French business enterprises were discover in Iraq. So let’s not believe this axis of weasels are anything but the most dastardly type of hypocrites.

To Celtthedog and Wesley: Read what I wrote, “carefully”. You will note that I said that it was Churchill’s own secretary for India that compared him to Hitler and being in the cabinent he was observing Churchill up close and in an excellent position to make such a judgement. I’m quite at liberty to “quote” him here and the area raids, more justified in the Pacific than against the Germans (read both the strategic bombing survey and Max Hasting’s “Bomber Command” for more insights into the bombing of Europe) in no way excuses Churchill’s actions especially given that Indian troops were fighting in North Africa where they had no dog in that fight. (What did they care if Hitler won in Europe?) Those troops by rights should have remained at home to face the Japanese. Note how Churchill repaid the Indians here.

And again, note Churchill’s authorization of the use of poison gas against Arabs in “Iraq” whose only crime was to resist British imperialism. Defend that if you want and can. I would rather not if you don’t mind. As for his quote regarding OUR Indians, by 1942/43 having seen what we did with our Indians Churchill had no excuse for mistreating his which he most certainly did. Standards had changed by then.

As for Lincoln, go back and read the 1866 Supreme Court ruling on how he conducted the war. They made it clear that his conduct, especially his wholesale violation of the Constitution was acceptable that war was not an excuse for ignoring the document he had taken an oath to uphold and defend.

I refuse today to see “imperialism” in any form as a “conservative” value. If either of you can find quotes from the Founders supporting the actions of Churchill, do so. But if you can’t . . . .

german_reader, as an American, I agree with 98% of what you have said except for 1 thing. You called our friend Rheinhardt here a “jingoistic American”. I doubt seriously that Rheinhardt is an American, since he spells “whine” as “whinge”, which is the British slang spelling. No American would spell “whine” as “whinge”.

And Rheinhardt, where are you getting off telling France, Russia and Germany they are “emasculated”? They are acting in pretty “masculine” ways by standing up for themselves in refusing to join this country and Britain in its hopeless war to keep the Middle East safe for Israel. Talk about emasculation. When the head of a foreign country can come here and give a speech to this country’s Congress as a slap in the face of the president, and get cheered in the process? (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/24/video-netanyahu-rocks-congress/). Pretty close to a treasonous activity from our “ally” in the ME. I’m sure not even Britain’s PM would have the nerve to do that, nor Germany’s or France’s. They would have more respect for our sovereignty than that. But what repercussions happened to our dear “friend”? Right. Talk about emasculation……

My own country is far from perfect but unlike in Britain immigrants and their descendants haven’t yet torched parts of the capital. Britain also has without doubt the most radicalized Muslim minority in all of Europe. Calling Britain’s immigration experience a success story is just wishful thinking.

German_reader, The reason the UK has a “radicalized ” Muslim minority is not because of UK policy but the type of immigrant. You have mostly Turks we have mostly Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. If any country imported vast numbers of these peoples it would have problems.

Nathan the entire US is one giant European colony. You stole the land and slaughtered the natives. Churchill was a better man than any of your founding fathers.

Rebecca, I assure you of my American origins – perhaps your accute knowlege of the world would have clued you in that I have considerable German influence in my muttdom – Ich heisse Rheinhardt – für echte. As for whinge – it adds a little comic irony and BTW is not slang.
As for your comments regarding Israel, I do feel their influence over neocons/ Wilsonian dems is not in the best interests of the West, but neither are the legions of tyrants in the world.
In the long run, the removal of SH will prove benefitial to the region’s prospects for democracy.
It is a shame that the Germans (I do keep in touch w/ the Volks so I have some insight to current Euro opine) do not see the benefits the same actions had on Germany – it is also reasonable to assume many Germans resent their defeat. This is human nature.
Rebecca – there was a considerable Jewish lobby in the US that pushed for war with Germany before PH – so your comments are not anything that is not commonly accepted, it is just a reality.
Germany pumps $15 billion into Israel every year and have military commitments to provide assistance in the event of an attack – it is easier to let the Anglos do it while (whilst) they sell stuff to the Iranians.

The “Arabists” in the British Foreign Office and elsewhere, after the First World War, were concerned about adverse effects on India, resulting from favoritism toward Jews in Palestine. They focused also on Egypt, due to importance of Suez Canal. And Iraq, due to oil.

Saudi Arabia made its deal with the US. Or, with US oil companies. Rather than British. ( In the main.)

German_Reader: Libya has become somewhat of a disaster, because Obama “led from behind” and punted the war to Britain and France who weren’t capable of fighting without ample U.S. assistance. But Libya would be in worse shape if Gaddafi had been allowed to stay in power and had slaughtered a bunch more of his people. He may very well have returned to sponsoring terrorism.

The reason why there is “no coherent strategy” in Afghanistan and may not be a “realistic chance of winning” is because Obama has had an ambiguous attitude toward the war in Afghanistan. During the 2008 election, Obama called Afghanistan “the good war.” while comparing it to Iraq, which he called “the bad war.” But once he became president in 2009 and the generals told him that they needed more troops in Afghanistan, Obama hesitated at the behest of his anti-war far-left base. In December 2009, Obama finally decided to send a surge of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, but that was less than the 40,000 that the generals recommend to him and even more, Obama immediately announced a timeline for withdrawing the surge troops. Obama has been withdrawing the troops from Afghanistan at a faster pace than the generals have wanted. It is likely that after 2014, there will be too few American and other ISAF troops left to really make much of a difference for the security of Afghanistan. At one point, the White House even said that there could be a “zero option,” meaning zero American and other ISAF troops in Afghanistan after 2014.

The other reason that Afghanistan may not turn out as the West would like it to is that Obama doesn’t know what to do about neighboring Pakistan and he is afraid to do things that would get the Pakistani government, especially the military, upset. There is still the threat of militants who attack in Afghanistan from their safe havens in Pakistan. Some people in the U.S. government, including the White House, have talked about launching Special Forces raids into Pakistan to capture or kill top militant leaders who launch attacks in Afghanistan. But obviously, Obama is too afraid of Pakistan to do this.

Nathan: I haven’t read much about Churchill and policies toward India, so I don’t know. But did Churchill’s secretary for India say that Churchill acted cold and callous or even sadistic toward the people of India during the famine? If the secretary did say something like that, I would find it hard to believe. And wasn’t Iraq given to Britain by the League of Nations? Churchill probably didn’t want to have to worry about fighting a long colonial rebellion during the middle of World War II.

LukeSampson: For your information, America was your own Britain’s colony. That’s why we Americans speak English and why “Smith” is the most common surname in America. And we Americans did not slaughter the natives. We fought the Indians and killed a lot of them, but it was usually justified. Those who we didn’t kill were settled on reservations. Now there was some bad treatment toward the Indians, such as the Trail of Tears and the small-pox infested blankets given to Indians by federal agents. But the Indians weren’t all peaceful children of nature as the modern left tries to portray them as. Some, like the Comanches and the Apaches, were pretty brutal.

“Thatcher, like former Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson, may have been considered a Friend of Israel (FOI), but unlike American presidents who were FOI, her ability to shape British policy towards the Jewish State was quite limited. (This episode of “Yes, Prime Minister” illustrates that point.) ”

The Special Relationship will continue if only because there is a French version. De Gaul, Mitterrand, Sarkosi, and Hollande all have something in common; they have used American military airlift and logistical support to intervene in places that they otherwise could not have gotten to. Scotland is a net drain on the Exchequer, the absence of which will necessitate further hydrocarbon adventurism. Even with Scotland under the Union Jack, access to Libyan oil fields dictated first a thaw then a freeze, then full on regime change, with the Scottish Parliament being used as toilet paper so that the “Arabists” in Whitehall could release a terrorist. By way of comparison, Germans have to take jobs as civilian contractors or join the Legion to get the same work. As we speak British troops are using M-113’s and probably Oshkosh cougars to patrol Afghanistan.

Barrack Obama’s Asian Pivot was abandoned when the Chinese grabbed the first Philippine atoll. It takes North Korean nuclear blackmail and ChiComm orchestrated anti-Japanese riots to get the Japanese to have negotiations about negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership. No one else came to BHO’s party, not even Australia. The post-modern left cannot avoid cordite; sadly not even at home.

“You have mostly Turks we have mostly Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. If any country imported vast numbers of these peoples it would have problems.”

Yes, you’re totally correct about this; if Germany had large-scale immigration of Pakistanis (instead of Turks who come from a country that has, at least in the past, been semi-Westernized), we would certainly have significant problems as well. But I think you’ll agree that it’s a rather flawed immigration policy to allow large-scale immigration from a country where the majority of the population thinks “apostates” should be punished with death and holds numerous other backward views. Contrary to what Rheinhardt seems to believe, I doubt that such people will magically be transformed into British patriots, with modern-day Western values, upon arrival in Britain.